8th Amendment

ProfessorPlum

anothernight wrote: »

I think you'll find that the HIQA report was not an investigation on her death, but a review of maternity services.



In fact, the report completely skirts around the issue of medical termination. Not one word of that report is related to Savita's request. Don't you think that's odd? When it came out, HIQA came under considerable criticism for this, including from medical quarters. Doesn't bother you at all, I'm sure.

Regardless, it's common for reports on the same issue to give slightly different results. It is clear that there was negligence in her death, otherwise she likely wouldn't have died at all. But why do you choose to ignore the HSE report, which dealt specifically with the investigation into her death? Why listen only to a report that outright states that it is not an investigation but a review of records, and that deals, in fact, with patient safety as a whole?

just a point of clarification - it's not clear at all that there was negligence. The medical council found that Dr Asbury had no case to answer in relation to her professional performance, and afaik, no other doctor has been sanctioned by he medical council or the courts.
Mistakes and systems failures happened, but that does not equate to negligence.
It's fairly widely accepted that there was no legal basis to terminate the pregnancy until the Wednesday morning, and it's also widely acknowledged that given the virulence of the E. Coli bacteria that caused the infection, there's every chance that she would not have survived, even if a termination had been performed at that stage - which was only a few hours before the decision was made to terminate. So I think it's unfair to say that 'there was negligence otherwise she wouldn't have died'

anothernight

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

just a point of clarification - it's not clear at all that there was negligence. The medical council found that Dr Asbury had no case to answer in relation to her professional performance, and afaik, no other doctor has been sanctioned by he medical council or the courts.
Mistakes and systems failures happened, but that does not equate to negligence.
It's fairly widely accepted that there was no legal basis to terminate the pregnancy until the Wednesday morning, and it's also widely acknowledged that given the virulence of the E. Coli bacteria that caused the infection, there's every chance that she would not have survived, even if a termination had been performed at that stage - which was only a few hours before the decision was made to terminate. So I think it's unfair to say that 'there was negligence otherwise she wouldn't have died'

I stand corrected then.

ProfessorPlum

Atlantis50 wrote: »

No negligence?

Someone (an 'expert' here on Savita's death) should tell Praveen Halappanavar he's making a terrible mistake in his legal case:

Ah - ok, since you've decided that there was negligence we can dispense with the court proceedings! "

The last point of negligence is particularly noteworthy - failure to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear that Ms Halappanavar's life was at risk.

Well this is quite the 'face palm' moment!
When did it 'become clear' that her life was at risk do you think? Isn't that the crux of the issue? Isn't that the reason that doctors feel encumbered by the 8th amendment? Isn't that why they have been asking for clarity for years?
Dr Asbury felt her legal obligations were only met on the Wednesday - she says her failure to act sooner was because of the law. Now others have come forward to say they would have acted sooner - but of course they say this in the comfort of their homes or offices without an ill patient and the prospect of a long spell behind bars if they get it wrong.

The difficult decisions doctors have to make should be medical ones, not legal ones.

Why restrict getting 'expert opinion' from Ireland only?

right. Because that's what happened, was it? Of course opinion from outside was gotten!

But it is important to get opinion from medics who are practicing in Ireland. Because they are somewhat unique in having to deal with the ridiculous situation here.

Black Menorca

traprunner wrote: »

In my opinion there is lack of evidence of a god but you believe there is one. What's the difference that makes you believe in a god yet not that women have committed suicide due to pregnancy? The evidence is stronger for the suicides. Even rationally thinking it makes more sense.

I'm asking for evidence of suicide. If there's none, just say so.

Black Menorca

K-9 wrote: »

You're entitled to that opinion, it's the way you expressed it insinuating that others had ulterior motives. Plenty of people on the site do argue the more anti abortion side and never cause a problem. It's the tone and dismissive nature of your posts that cause the problem.

Tbh folks, I don't see much of a long term future for the thread. There will be no referendum until the next Dail at least and we're going around in the same circles as these threads always end up doing.

On a general note, no more calling others trolls, debate the points respectfully or just don't waste time replying at all.

Agreed.

oscarBravo

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'm asking for evidence of suicide.

Would it change your mind?

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would it change your mind?

Of course not.

But the lack evidence of pregnant women committing suicide is interesting, considering how some use the prospect as a justification for intentionally taking the unborn baby's life.

Penny Tration

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course not.

But the lack evidence of pregnant women committing suicide is interesting, considering how some use the prospect as a justification for intentionally taking the unborn baby's life.

Considering the stigma surrounding mental illness in this country, and the amount of suicides that are covered up as 'one person car crashes ' or other such tragedies, as well as the hatred and bile displayed towards women who express their lack of desire for the foetus in their bodies - it's far from interesting.

One can never truly know the cause of suicide because the only person who can tell us the reason is dead.

Black Menorca

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Considering the stigma surrounding mental illness in this country, and the amount of suicides that are covered up as 'one person car crashes ' or other such tragedies, as well as the hatred and bile displayed towards women who express their lack of desire for the foetus in their bodies - it's far from interesting.

One can never truly know the cause of suicide because the only person who can tell us the reason is dead.

Potentially there might be no suicide due to pregnancy.

Penny Tration

Black Menorca wrote: »

Potentially there might be no suicide due to pregnancy.

Potentially there may be no god.

Potentially I could actually be male.

Potentially we could all die tomorrow.

Pregnant women, such as in the miss y case, have been documented as being suicidal because of their pregnancy.

That's the best you can get, because a dead person cannot tell you why.

swampgas

Black Menorca wrote: »

Potentially there might be no suicide due to pregnancy.

You are refusing to admit that suicide could be linked to crisis pregnancies because you can't handle what that means if it is true.

It is very, very likely to be true. You have the choice of continuing to deny that it's possible, or admitting to yourself that actually sometimes a desperate woman will commit suicide because she is pregnant.

It might require you to rethink your position, not an easy thing to do, but hey, if you consider yourself a moral/ethical person no doubt you will do the right thing and be honest with yourself about it.

Black Menorca

The vocal threat of suicide is no justification for the killing of an unborn baby.

anothernight

swampgas wrote: »

You are refusing to admit that suicide could be linked to crisis pregnancies because you can't handle what that means if it is true.

It is very, very likely to be true. You have the choice of continuing to deny that it's possible, or admitting to yourself that actually sometimes a desperate woman will commit suicide because she is pregnant.

It might require you to rethink your position, not an easy thing to do, but hey, if you consider yourself a moral/ethical person no doubt you will do the right thing and be honest with yourself about it.

Let's not forget that when asked (by SW and myself) what kind of evidence he would actually accept as evidence, he refused point blank to answer.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

The vocal threat of suicide is no justification for the killing of an unborn baby.

what do you propose? Detain the woman until she delivers the child?

swampgas

Black Menorca wrote: »

The vocal threat of suicide is no justification for the killing of an unborn baby.

Suppose it's not an unborn baby but a four week old embryo/foetus?

And suppose a team of psychiatrists confirm that the woman is truly suicidal?

Why would you want to take such a risk with somone's life, for something that might become a baby, given time, but certainly isn't one yet?

Surely deliberately putting someone's life at risk is also very wrong?

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course not.

But the lack evidence of pregnant women committing suicide is interesting, considering how some use the prospect as a justification for intentionally taking the unborn baby's life.

Funnily enough, it's the 8th amendment that allows this. Yet you support it.

am946745

swampgas wrote: »

Suppose it's not an unborn baby but a four week old embryo/foetus?

And suppose a team of psychiatrists confirm that the woman is truly suicidal?

Why would you want to take such a risk with somone's life, for something that might become a baby, given time, but certainly isn't one yet?

Surely deliberately putting someone's life at risk is also very wrong?

Abortion does not reduce the Suicide risk.

There has already been ample debate about this.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21532

women who had abortions were 6 to 7 times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

what do you propose? Detain the woman until she delivers the child?

All psychiatric services and options should be considered to ensure the safety of mother and unborn baby.

ProfessorPlum

SW wrote: »

what do you propose? Detain the woman until she delivers the child?

No, I think he'd like to see an honest to goodness attempt. None of your half hearted attempts either.

Black Menorca

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Funnily enough, it's the 8th amendment that allows this. Yet you support it.

How many babies have been killed in the womb because their mothers declared they were suicidal?

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

All psychiatric services and options should be considered to ensure the safety of mother and unborn baby.

Including possibly detaining the woman until she delivers the child?

am946745

Black Menorca wrote: »

How many babies have been killed in the womb because their mothers declared they were suicidal?

that was the basis of the UK legislation which was so ample that even those who introduced it regretted. it.

Lord Steel, architect of the 1967 Abortion Act, says today that abortion is being used as a form of contraception in Britain and admits he never anticipated "anything like" the current number of terminations when leading the campaign for reform.

and he end up here ->
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/9100838/Pregnant-women-have-asked-for-terminations-because-they-did-not-want-their-holidays-spoilt.html

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Abortion does not reduce the Suicide risk.

There has already been ample debate about this.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21532

women who had abortions were 6 to 7 times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth.

this again?

The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy.[1][2] Major medical bodies have found that induced abortions do not cause mental-health problems, and that the risk of mental-health problems is equal whether an unplanned pregnancy is carried to term or terminated via abortion.[3][4] Pre-existing factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, pre-existing psychiatric illness, and conservative views on abortion increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.[5][6][7]


In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[8] The APA updated its findings in August 2008 to account for new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first unplanned pregnancy did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.[3][9] A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences.[10] In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.[4][11]


Despite the weight of medical opinion on the subject, some pro-life advocacy groups have continued to allege a link between abortion and mental-health problems.[12] Some pro-life groups have used the term "post-abortion syndrome" to refer to negative psychological effects which they attribute to abortion. However, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as an actual syndrome by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association,[13] or the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists;[14] physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.[1][12][15][16] Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature.[10][17]

Source

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

How many babies have been killed in the womb because their mothers declared they were suicidal?

???

Have you read the POLDP Act?
It's clearly laid out the mechanisms for terminating a pregnancy where the mother is suicidal.
While patient's medical records are rightly confidential, I believe the Minister has to report on cases that fall under the Act before the end of the month.
Do you really think if it allows for a delivery of a severely preterm infant that it won't allow for an earlier term abortion?

Are we counting the women who went to the UK (much easier for most than have to run the gauntlet in this jurisdiction)?

am946745

SW wrote: »

this again?


Source

And we are supposed to believe the biased APA’s pro-choice position?

anothernight

Reminder: it's not just the UK that allows abortion. Please don't just assume that Ireland will be the exact same as the UK if/when abortion is allowed. A bit of variety would be nice too, thank you.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Including possibly detaining the woman until she delivers the child?

I'd let the experts decide if detention is necessary.

There are people in secure locations for their own safety already. Are you not aware of this?

Black Menorca

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

???

Have you read the POLDP Act?
It's clearly laid out the mechanisms for terminating a pregnancy where the mother is suicidal.
While patient's medical records are rightly confidential, I believe the Minister has to report on cases that fall under the Act before the end of the month.
Do you really think if it allows for a delivery of a severely preterm infant that it won't allow for an earlier term abortion?

Are we counting the women who went to the UK (much easier for most than have to run the gauntlet in this jurisdiction)?

So, how many babies have been killed in the womb by way of this legislation? None?

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

And we are supposed to believe the biased APA’s pro-choice position?

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'd let the experts decide if detention is necessary.

There are people in secure locations for their own safety already. Are you not aware of this?

I am. And I don't agree with detaining women for months until they come to term when all they want is access to an abortion.

ProfessorPlum

am946745 wrote: »

And we are supposed to believe the biased APA’s pro-choice position?

Are we supposed to believe Patricia Casey's (Patron of Iona, subject of your linked newspaper article) unbiased opinion?

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, how many babies have been killed in the womb by way of this legislation? None?

Did you not manage to read past the first line of the post you quoted?

am946745

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Are we supposed to believe Patricia Casey's (Patron of Iona, subject of your linked newspaper article) unbiased opinion?

I wasn't going to Quote Patricia Casey, but since you brought her into the debate. I ask you the question why would you not take seriously her work? Is she un-qualified as an Irish psychiatrist go give a reasoned opinion?

Abortion is a polarising debate. Anyone who publishes about the topic gets questioned about the allegiance. The fact he happens to be a Catholic does not take away for her academic secular research on the topic. If pro-choice are going to exclude experts because they don't side with their opinion then there is no debate.

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'd let the experts decide if detention is necessary.

Excellent. Let's allow the experts to decide if termination is necessary too then shall we?
Without having to fret over the constitution, the POLDP act, and the potential of 14 years in prison if they get it wrong.

am946745

SW wrote: »

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Can you reopen the thread I started on this topic?

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

I wasn't going to Quote Patricia Casey, but since you brought her into the debate. I ask you the question why would you not take seriously her work? Is she un-qualified as an Irish psychiatrist go give a reasoned opinion?

Abortion is a polarising debate. Anyone who publishes about the topic gets questioned about the allegiance. The fact he happens to be a Catholic does not take away for her academic secular research on the topic. If pro-choice are going to exclude experts because they don't side with their opinion then there is no debate.

You just did that with the APA and UK research you didin't like!

am946745 wrote: »

Can you reopen the thread I started on this topic?

why do you need to post the evidence elsewhere?

am946745

SW wrote: »

You just did that with the APA and UK research you didin't like!



why do you need to post the evidence elsewhere?

Are there any moderators on Boards.ie that are not pro-choice?

ProfessorPlum

am946745 wrote: »

I wasn't going to Quote Patricia Casey, but since you brought her into the debate. I ask you the question why would you not take seriously her work? Is she un-qualified as an Irish psychiatrist go give a reasoned opinion?

.

But you just did bring her into the debate- the news paper article you quoted was reporting her submission!

Casey is not just a catholic, she is a patron of Iona, which is so far to the right its over the edge, and as far as I can see, residing somewhere circ 1953. Anything she says is coloured be her allegiance to that group of particularly special people.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Are there any moderators on Boards.ie that are not pro-choice?

I fail to see relevance to the discussion.

Do you have any evidence to post or not?

Black Menorca

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Did you not manage to read past the first line of the post you quoted?

Not a shred of evidence that one baby was killed in the womb since the passing of X, thank God.

Black Menorca

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Excellent. Let's allow the experts to decide if termination is necessary too then shall we?
Without having to fret over the constitution, the POLDP act, and the potential of 14 years in prison if they get it wrong.

14 years is something to pay heed to I'd daresay.

Black Menorca

am946745 wrote: »

Are there any moderators on Boards.ie that are not pro-choice?

Post of the thread.

Don't let them get you down.

swampgas

am946745 wrote: »

that was the basis of the UK legislation which was so ample that even those who introduced it regretted. it.

So what? Do the women and girls of the UK who needed abortions regret it? I believe most of them are relieved they had the choice of having an abortion.

What anti-abortionists want is to force women who don't want to be pregnant to continue a pregnancy. No matter how much the woman doesn't want it, no matter the risks to her health, no matter the risks to the health of the prospective baby, no matter whether the baby will survive or not.

It's okay to not have an abortion yourself, even if you really don't want to be pregnant. You can make that sacrifice if you want. But forcing other women to do the same is a monstrous invasion of their autonomy, privacy and right to self-determination.

Black Menorca

swampgas wrote: »

So what? Do the women and girls of the UK who needed abortions regret it? I believe most of them are relieved they had the choice of having an abortion.

What anti-abortionists want is to force women who don't want to be pregnant to continue a pregnancy. No matter how much the woman doesn't want it, no matter the risks to her health, no matter the risks to the health of the prospective baby, no matter whether the baby will survive or not.

It's okay to not have an abortion yourself, even if you really don't want to be pregnant. You can make that sacrifice if you want. But forcing other women to do the same is a monstrous invasion of their autonomy, privacy and right to self-determination.

There is a grave responsibility on all pregnant women to do no intentional harm to their unborn babies.

swampgas

Black Menorca wrote: »

There is a grave responsibility on all pregnant women to do no intentional harm to their unborn babies.

That's fine for you to choose that responsibility for yourself.

Why should you be allowed to enforce it on anyone else?

Surely a woman should be allowed to decide for herself, considering just how difficult an unwanted pregnancy might be?

You can tell a woman that you believe she has that responsibility, but do you really think you have the right to actually force her to go through with it against her will?

Black Menorca

swampgas wrote: »

That's fine for you to choose that responsibility for yourself.

Why should you be allowed to enforce it on anyone else?

Surely a woman should be allowed to decide for herself, considering just how difficult an unwanted pregnancy might be?

You can tell a woman that you believe she has that responsibility, but do you really think you have the right to actually force her to go through with it against her will?

The Law of the land demands it, not I. Though I support it fully and take great pride in the stance we take against the abortion industry.

swampgas

Black Menorca wrote: »

The Law of the land demands it, not I. Though I support it fully and take great pride in the stance we take against the abortion industry.

You're dodging the question here, to be honest. Don't hide behind the current law when the whole point of the discussion is to debate whether the law is fair and just, and whether it needs to be changed or not.

Why do you, personally, think it is okay to prevent another woman - a citizen who should have equal rights to you - making a different decision to the one you might make?

.

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

Not a shred of evidence that one baby was killed in the womb since the passing of X, thank God.

Eh, do you need some coffee or something? The evidence isn't public. It's the private medical records of patients. Now, are you advocating that someone should ignore patient confidentiality and disclose said records? As I said, the minister wil report on the first year of legislation circa the end of the month.

It's beside the point though. The 8th and the POLDP act allow it. If it wasn't for the 8th, I'd be very surprised if termination without time limits due to suicidal ideation would be legal. But glad that you support that ideal.

Black Menorca

swampgas wrote: »

You're dodging the question here, to be honest. Don't hide behind the current law when the whole point of the discussion is to debate whether the law is fair and just, and whether it needs to be changed or not.

Why do you, personally, think it is okay to prevent another woman - a citizen who should have equal rights to you - making a different decision to the one you might make?

.

I'm not hiding.

I believe unborn babies have the right to have no intentional harm done to them and the law happens to agree with me.

K-9

am946745 wrote: »

Can you reopen the thread I started on this topic?

I'm lost, was that on another part of Boards

Btw I'm not pro choice or pro abortion, not that it matters when it comes to Modding decisions.